3 ms·

You can't out run your diet. Cardio for weight loss is mostly a waste of time. It has secondary benefits like reducing hunger post work out but it's hard to exe

You can't out run your diet. Cardio for weight loss is mostly a waste of time. It has secondary benefits like reducing hunger post work out but it's hard to exercise enough to quickly lose weight. Running a marathon will burn around 2500 calories, less than a pound of fat.

mathieuh 3y ago
2500 calories for a marathon sounds way too low. I do bike rides every weekend that are typically burning over 3000 calories. This is with a power meter on the bike so it's not going to be miles off.
- sceptical 3y ago
  General rule is 100 calories per mile so 2500 calories for a marathon seems reasonable.
_Wintermute 3y ago
Running maybe not, but if you get too into cycling or swimming (or I guess any low-impact endurance sport), it can sometimes be a chore to shovel enough food into you.
taeric 3y ago
Ish? Yes, you can't just "run off the calories" of food, per se. That said, the more time you spend running/walking/whatever, the less time you spend eating, in many cases. That marathon, for example, is not nearly as simple as eating a burger. One takes several hours for a very fit athlete. The other is minutes for most people. That is, it is easy to view some exercising as a substitute for some snacking. And, in that job, it works rather well. Is my hypothesis on why the simple walk around the neighborhood has outsized impact on weight loss.
- Kirby64 3y ago
  Just walking around is much better for calories burned vs. exertion. It's just worse from a time standpoint. Running has been shown to induce hunger, so erasing the caloric benefit of it with a snack is very easy. Walking, since it's so much lower impact, doesn't really have the same issue, and you can sustain it for much longer periods (especially if you're untrained) than you can with running.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Right, agreed that the time is the important part. If you can sustain a run for an hour or so a day, that is a lot different than a 20 minute one. And, my assertion is that a lot of the benefit of the extra 40 minutes is the substitution effect. This is a lot of what I think many studies find that show benefits to coffee and such. Nowadays, that is as often a substitute for sodas. And the amount of calories you get from a soda is just flat out absurd. I'm fairly certain even those of us that know it is bad for you underestimate just how bad it is.
stephen_g 3y ago
I didn't really need to lose any weight, but found I just naturally did when I started swimming once and then later twice a week (for about 40 minutes to an hour/2km to 2.5km per session). I basically didn't change my diet (although I had started eating generally healthier six months or so before just because I thought it was a good idea), and after a while I found I was getting lighter than I wanted to be and actually had to consciously eat more to maintain my weight.
RHSman2 3y ago
It’s why walking is such a good exercise. 300 cals per hr and doesn’t destroy you. Burns fat (zone 2). I’d suggest that calorific burn really is but one measure.
- nradov 3y ago
  Are you sure about that? Walking is great for many reasons but unless you're really unfit it won't get your heart rate into zone 2. It's more of a zone 1 activity.
  - RHSman2 3y ago
    True. Zone 1-2 depending on topography
nradov 3y ago
Running calories burned varies tremendously by weight and speed. Like if I was to run a marathon in 4.5 hours that would burn about 4000 kcal. https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-running/ https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-running/

mathieuh 3y ago

2500 calories for a marathon sounds way too low. I do bike rides every weekend that are typically burning over 3000 calories. This is with a power meter on the bike so it's not going to be miles off.

sceptical 3y ago
General rule is 100 calories per mile so 2500 calories for a marathon seems reasonable.

_Wintermute 3y ago

Running maybe not, but if you get too into cycling or swimming (or I guess any low-impact endurance sport), it can sometimes be a chore to shovel enough food into you.

taeric 3y ago

Ish? Yes, you can't just "run off the calories" of food, per se. That said, the more time you spend running/walking/whatever, the less time you spend eating, in many cases. That marathon, for example, is not nearly as simple as eating a burger. One takes several hours for a very fit athlete. The other is minutes for most people. That is, it is easy to view some exercising as a substitute for some snacking. And, in that job, it works rather well. Is my hypothesis on why the simple walk around the neighborhood has outsized impact on weight loss.

Kirby64 3y ago
Just walking around is much better for calories burned vs. exertion. It's just worse from a time standpoint. Running has been shown to induce hunger, so erasing the caloric benefit of it with a snack is very easy. Walking, since it's so much lower impact, doesn't really have the same issue, and you can sustain it for much longer periods (especially if you're untrained) than you can with running.
- taeric 3y ago
  Right, agreed that the time is the important part. If you can sustain a run for an hour or so a day, that is a lot different than a 20 minute one. And, my assertion is that a lot of the benefit of the extra 40 minutes is the substitution effect. This is a lot of what I think many studies find that show benefits to coffee and such. Nowadays, that is as often a substitute for sodas. And the amount of calories you get from a soda is just flat out absurd. I'm fairly certain even those of us that know it is bad for you underestimate just how bad it is.

stephen_g 3y ago

I didn't really need to lose any weight, but found I just naturally did when I started swimming once and then later twice a week (for about 40 minutes to an hour/2km to 2.5km per session). I basically didn't change my diet (although I had started eating generally healthier six months or so before just because I thought it was a good idea), and after a while I found I was getting lighter than I wanted to be and actually had to consciously eat more to maintain my weight.

RHSman2 3y ago

It’s why walking is such a good exercise. 300 cals per hr and doesn’t destroy you. Burns fat (zone 2). I’d suggest that calorific burn really is but one measure.

nradov 3y ago
Are you sure about that? Walking is great for many reasons but unless you're really unfit it won't get your heart rate into zone 2. It's more of a zone 1 activity.
- RHSman2 3y ago
  True. Zone 1-2 depending on topography

nradov 3y ago

Running calories burned varies tremendously by weight and speed. Like if I was to run a marathon in 4.5 hours that would burn about 4000 kcal. https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-running/ https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-running/